"Presuppositionalism" is the name given to a special branch of Christian apologetics. In this blog, I will post my criticisms of presuppositionalism as it is informed and defended by apologists such as Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, Cornelius Van Til, Richard Pratt, and their latter-day followers.

Saturday, April 07, 2012

Answering Dustin Segers’ Presuppositionalism, Part I: Intro and the Nature of Truth

Christian apologist Dustin Segers (remember him?) recently posted an entry on his blog in which he tells about his experiences at something called the “Reason Rally.” Segers used the words ‘sophisticated’ and ‘blasphemous’ to describe what he witnessed at the event, which he calls “an opportunity to trash religion in general and Christianity specifically.” I’m guessing any non-religious assembly must by its very nature be guilty of this particularly nefarious misdeed. Believers gather on a weekly basis to condemn non-believers and fancy themselves as numbering among “the chosen,” but when non-believers gather at an annual meet open to all comers, it’s specifically intended to “trash” Christianity.

After voicing complaints about the festival’s “trashing” of religion and its “rant against the God of the Bible,” and then humbly calling attention to his own valiant efforts to endure persecution and turn the gathering into an occasion to evangelize its participants, Segers illustrates his apologetic by posing four questions:

2. Logic - I asked, "If you believe that only matter exists, (a) how do you account for the immaterial, universal, propositional, immaterial laws of logic given your philosophical materialism apart from an appeal to God and (b) how to you make sense out of our obligation to be rational?"

3. Science - "How do you answer the problem of induction from a secular perspective?"

4. Morality - "How do you account for objective morality without God?"

Segers seems to think that these questions are sure to bring a non-believer to his knees. And no doubt, I wouldn’t be surprised if many non-Christians hit with these questions will be caught off-guard and stumble in their attempts to address them. When this happens, apologists will gleefully count such unpreparedness and groping as evidence of the truth they claim on behalf of their worldview. In this very manner, Christianity feeds in delight on the ignorance of men. This is why the content of Christian apologetics is more often than not a load of questions thrust at non-Christians in rapid-fire succession. One could be forgiven for having the impression that the apologist is really after a moment when the non-believer throws up his hands and exclaims, “Duh, I donno! Must be God did it!” And though such a turnabout is very unlikely, apologists thirst and hunger for such spectacles as this, for in their delusions they are most desperate for any kind of validation.

Presuming that Christianity actually has something of substance to say on each of the matters raised in Segers’ line of inquiry, such inclined believers are not likely to attribute uninformative responses to their questions to possibilities such as that those providing them: (a) are simply not philosophers; (b) haven’t given the issues they involve much thought; (c) see no relevance where apologists imagine a connection to their god-belief; or (d) are in fact merely borrowing from the Christian worldview, as presuppositionalists so often charge non-believers of doing. These alternatives to the theist’s desired conclusion are either not entertained entirely, or are brushed away with the greatest of ease on behalf a more expedient inference, namely that the non-believer, given his non-belief, simply cannot produce viable answers to such questions.

In this series, I am going to examine Segers’ four apologetic questions, and offer answers to them from the perspective of Objectivism as I have come to understand it. Since Objectivism is atheistic in nature, my responses to Segers’ questions will constitute an atheistic answer to his apologetic, but should not be taken as representative of all atheistic worldviews (since there are many, and Objectivism is only one of them).

In addition to providing answers to Segers’ questions from the Objectivist position, I would like to contrast the Objectivist position against the Christian position in the process. Presuppositionalists should in no way object to this, since Greg Bahnsen himself has emphasized that “[w]e need to set the Christian worldview, the theistic world view side by side with the atheist world view” in order to determine not only which worldview is true, but also which one handles the issues which come under dispute in a rational manner. Indeed, as will be seen throughout my analyses of the issues which Segers’ questions raise, my concern here will be to light a light where theists would prefer a darkness to condemn. Let Segers pose his questions, and let’s see some rational answers for a refreshing change.

Since my the first concern in honoring Bahnsen’s proposal above is to determine which of the two worldviews (if either) is true, Segers’ first question is indeed the best place to start.

The answer to this question is not mysterious, and it shouldn’t be. But it can get complicated as analysis into the process of forming truth claims is explored.

Very simply, truth is the non-contradictory, objective identification of fact. Truth obtains when an objectively formed, logically assembled conceptual structure (e.g., a proposition) conforms to the facts which it is intended to denote in accordance with the relevant content of those facts.

On this view, given the emphasis of such identification being objective in nature, the facts which one discovers in reality provide the content which informs truth. On this view, truth does not hinge on personal preferences, likes, dislikes, wishes, imaginations, insistence, temper tantrums, or other emotional outbursts. Nor are facts “creations” of consciousness: the mind does not supply the facts which serve as the content of truth, but rather discovers them by an objective process.

We discover facts which are external to and which exist independent of our consciousness. We discover them by means of a consciousness process (beginning with sense perception), and formulate conceptual structures by means of conscious activity to identify these facts. These conceptual structures are either true or false.

(A third category, arbitrary claims, arises when there is no rational connection between the content of a claim and the realm of facts. An arbitrary claim is neither true nor false, since it is a claim

for which there is no evidence, either perceptual or conceptual. It is a brazen assertion, based neither on direct observation nor on any attempted logical inference therefrom… An arbitrary statement has no relation to man’s means of knowledge. Since the statement is detached from the realm of evidence, no process of logic can assess it. Since it is affirmed in a void, cut off from any context, no integration to the rest of man’s knowledge is applicable; previous knowledge is irrelevant to it. Since it has no place in a hierarchy, no reduction [i.e., to some factual basis] is possible, and thus no observations are relevant… If an idea is cut loose from any means of cognition, there is no way of bringing it into relationship with reality. (Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 164))

These conceptual structures, whether we call them propositions, statements, or complex conceptual integrations, are true when they (a) conform to the facts in a manner which takes their full (known or observable) context into account and (b) can be integrated into the sum of one’s previously validated knowledge (i.e., a sum of knowledge which is itself non-contradictory) without contradicting it at any point. In any truth claim, at issue are the facts which inform it, the conceptual process by which the truth claim has been formed, and the relationship between the two (including the cognitive process by which one acquires awareness of those facts). This is just one reason why a good theory of concepts is so important to knowledge.

Important distinctions which are relevant to the nature of truth need to be acknowledged and understood. Facts are metaphysical; they are not creations of consciousness. Facts obtain independent of consciousness. Truth is an aspect of a specific type of operation of consciousness (without being subjective inventions), namely one which acknowledges the extra-mental independence of facts from its very inception and which seeks to conform its identificatory efforts to the nature of the facts which it discovers in reality independent of its own activity. This is distinctive of truth; it is fundamental to its nature.

No, you will not find such a conception of truth in the bible. On the contrary, if one were to seek a definition of the concept ‘truth’ in the bible, one might find that truth is thought to be a person (cf. John 14:6), embodied in a piece of meat whose primary purpose was to be nailed to a cross and die for the transgressions of others. Indeed, in my interactions with Christian apologists, I have posed Segers’ very own question to them, and quite often I have gotten the unexplained response to the effect that “Jesus is truth.” Christians are persons who subscribe to this storybook view of truth. By contrast, I’ll go with the objective analysis of truth, and Segers will likely condemn me for this.

But make no mistake, my analysis of truth and the antithesis between Objectivism and the subjectivism of mystical worldviews is not askew. Greg Bahnsen clarifies for us the subjective nature of truth as Christianity conceives of it when he writes:

The Christian’s approach to the notion of truth is both more basic than those usually considered and also less formal (more substantial, more personal). The believer understands that truth fundamentally is whatever conforms to the mind of God (cf. Ps. 111:7-8; John 14:6; 16:13). Thus, the Bible applies the term not only to the facts (e.g., Deut. 17:4; Eph. 4:25) – since they are all predetermined by the mind of God (Eph. 1:11; Isa. 46:9-11; Matt. 10:29-30) – but also to what is eternal and absolute (e.g., John 6:32, 35; 15:1; Heb. 8:2), as well as to what is ethically right (e.g., Ps. 26:3; John 3:21; 2 John 4). (Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings & Analysis, p. 163)

On this view, truth is “whatever conforms to” someone’s mind; i.e., to the content of some subject of awareness. According to Christianity, truth is not something which conforms to the objects of the subject’s awareness. In other words, in assessing what is truth as Christianity informs it, the subject of awareness holds metaphysical primacy over the objects of awareness.

Now Bahnsen does try to have it both ways here by saying that the term ‘truth’ “applies” to facts as well. And of course, truth does apply to facts, but only when facts serve as truth’s basis and standard. But saying that truth “applies to facts” is not the same as saying that truth conforms to the content of some mind. For the Christian, as Bahnsen makes clear, truth is something that conforms to the mind of a supernatural being. On this view, facts are merely incidental to truth; truth and fact only happen to coincide, because the ruling consciousness wills it. Beyond that the term ‘truth’ is a mere token of nominalism: it’s just a word whose referential content ultimately hinges on some subject’s preferences, commandments, mood swings, even “unsearchable purpose.”

Moreover, if facts themselves “are all predetermined by the mind of God,” as Bahnsen holds, then facts do not ultimately underwrite truth as its informative basis. Indeed, the whims of the ruling consciousness do, since they – rather than facts – are what ultimately determines what both truth and facts might turn out to be. On the Christian view, facts are manipulable, like putty in a child’s hands, like clay on the potter’s wheel, and therefore so is truth. For Christianity, truth is thus essentially dependent on whim. Bahnsen’s mentor Cornelius Van Til makes this crystal clear as part and parcel of the Christian philosophy of fact:

God may at any time take one fact and set it into a new relation to created law. That is, there is no inherent reason in the facts or laws why this should not be done. It is this sort of conception of the relation of facts and laws, of the temporal one and many, embedded as it is in the idea of God in which we profess to believe, that we need in order to make room for miracles. And miracles are at the heart of the Christian position. (The Defense of the Faith, p. 27)

Quite simply, if facts are not absolute (e.g., if they can be revised by some conscious subject's will), then any truths which are intended to correspond to those facts will likewise not be absolute. Since facts on the Christian worldview are subject to some ruling consciousness's intentions (commandments, decrees, whims, wishes, purposes, or what have you), then it's hard to see how the Christian worldview can accommodate any absolute rendering of the concept of truth. It seems that the Christian worldview, given its commitment to the primacy of a subject's intentions in metaphysics, condemns truth to a most unreliable and elusive category.

Consequently, merely by raising the question, “What is truth in your worldview?” Segers draws our attention to two completely antithetically, mutually opposed conceptions of what truth is: the objective view of truth (represented in intact form by Objectivism), and the subjective view of truth (which is characteristic of any irrational worldview, including but not limited to Christianity). The issue here is essentially the relationship between what we call ‘truth’ and the facts which we discover in reality by an objective methodology. In an objective worldview, facts are recognized to be absolute; in a mystical worldview, facts are ultimately creations of some cosmic subject that are revisable at will.

Is this really where Segers wants to go in his apologetic? Is this really the antithesis to which he wants to draw attention when deploying his apologetic talk points? I’m guessing Segers will not respond to such questions, even though they are crucially pertinent.

83 Comments:

"Very simply, truth is the non-contradictory, objective identification of fact. Truth obtains when an objectively formed, logically assembled conceptual structure (e.g., a proposition) conforms to the facts which it is intended to denote in accordance with the relevant content of those facts."

"On this view, given the emphasis of such identification being objective in nature, the facts which one discovers in reality provide the content which informs truth. On this view, truth does not hinge on personal preferences, likes, dislikes, wishes, imaginations, insistence, temper tantrums, or other emotional outbursts. Nor are facts “creations” of consciousness: the mind does not supply the facts which serve as the content of truth, but rather discovers them by an objective process."

and what Hezekiah are the conceptual roots for the concept real? where and how did you form that concept and from what? What are its epistemological and metaphysical requirements. If you are going to argue with an objectivist you had better come to grips with their theory of concepts which after 8 months you still have not.

Apologists need to go back to the drawing board and reformulate their spiel.

Their invisible magic being remains hidden, undetectable, imperceptible, and indistinguishable from nothing at all. And they, themselves, can no longer hide behind the fortress they've constructed, intended as it is to safeguard the imaginary and built with materials blatantly co-opted from rational worldviews. Thanks to you, their walls are crumbling all around them, and they are being exposed for all to see.

The fallacy of looking out the window and assuming it has been raining because the street/lawn is wet is called Affirming the Consequent.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#consequent

When G.E. Moore was asked why he thought there was an external world, he held up a hand and said: Here is a hand." Then he held up his other hand and said: "Here is another hand." The point being that when we kick reality, it kicks back. G.E. Moore's audience knew that they saw Moore's hands because they observed his hands. The point being that which is directly observed coherently by multiple detectors needs no proving.

If truth is based on God, how is it the statement "God exists" is true?

Truth is based on reality, wich does not conform to *ANY* consciousness. Otherwise reality wouldn't be an ABSOLUTE, but the mutable construct of some mind. This mind would be forever lost in a realm of imagination, crazyness, always manufacturing its (his/her?) own reality, never being real itself, never having an unchanging reality in which to exist, conform, BE A SUBJETC. That's why the idea of an all powerfull, truth and reality-making god is nonsensical per se.In order for things to be true of false such a mind must not exist. And it doesnt

@JustinThe problem is they want so desperately this being to exist that they loose sight of the implications of such an existence. How would existece look like if you could alter reality at a whim? How does it feel like to be be "base of truth"? Boring and nonsensical. Someone living like that would probably want to cease its own existence like a madman desperate and incapable of fleeing a realm he is constantly creating. This God would be a miserable being. It sure can only be imagined but believers are not that concerned about the difference between reality and imagination. See the link? In the end, THEY become the God they imagine. Theing whims give them permition to imagine and believe anything, no matter what (angels, demons, gods, talking snakes, etc) They create their own reality, just like the God they imagine.

@HezekiahIf I was imaginary people who believed in me would say you should never test my existence, or that empirical evidence would not be possible to establish that I exist. They would talk to me in prayers, no image, no form, no posts, in order to allow for everyone to imagine me as they feel fit. Maybe I could post, but only through "chosen" individuals" There are many clues that helps us to suspect something is imaginary. What clues have you found about my existence that leveled up your suspicions? Maybe people around you can't see my posts...or only you and nobody else on this blog are visualizing what I write...Do you have any reason to doubt my existence?

"Truth is the product of the recognition (i.e., identification) of the facts of reality. Man identifies and integrates the facts of reality by means of concepts. He retains concepts in his mind by means of definitions. He organizes concepts into propositions—and the truth or falsehood of his propositions rests, not only on their relation to the facts he asserts, but also on the truth or falsehood of the definitions of the concepts he uses to assert them, which rests on the truth or falsehood of his designations of essential characteristics." ~ I.T.OE. p.48

2. Logic - I asked, "If you believe that only matter exists, (a) how do you account for the immaterial, universal, propositional, immaterial laws of logic given your philosophical materialism apart from an appeal to God and (b) how to you make sense out of our obligation to be rational?"

I dealt with this issue several years ago by reworking one of Francois Tremblay's "Introduction to Materialist Apologetics" essay. The ideas in this piece are to his credit. Logic arises from material existence. http://robertbumbalough.blogspot.com/2008/08/logic-arises-from-material-existence.html

Seger does not get the point. He fails to understand even the most rudimentary features of Objectivism. All he had to do was actually read a book about Objectivism or do a little fact checking; instead he decided to show off his incompetence. Objectivists are not materialists. We acknowledge consciousness as an actual phenomena consisting of set(s) of instantiated brain/nervous system actions resulting in cognition and forming the basis of all knowledge.

Rand explained, "Reason is man’s only means of grasping reality and of acquiring knowledge;" she continued, "and, therefore, the rejection of reason means that men should act regardless of and/or in contradiction to the facts of reality. ~ Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, p.162

(By rejecting reason as the only means of acquiring knowledge in favor of his alleged feelings of Sensus Divinus, Seger essentially lives and acts randomly according to whatever whim he mistakes for the alleged inner witness of his god's spirit.)

Rand expanded in Faith and Force Destroyers of the Modern World on her theme of reason, writing:

"Reason integrates man’s perceptions by means of forming abstractions or conceptions, thus raising man’s knowledge from the perceptual level, which he shares with animals, to the conceptual level, which he alone can reach. The method which reason employs in this process is logic—and logic is the art of non-contradictory identification."

This is directly opposite of materialism's point of view. Peikoff in OPAR described materialism thus:

"...we (O-ists) accept reality, and that's all.

This does not mean that Objectivists are materialists.

Materialists-men such as Democritus, Hobbs, Marx, Skinner-champion nature by deny the reality or efficacy of consciousness. Consciousness, in this view, is either a myth or a useless byproduct of brain or other motions. In Objectivist terms, this amounts to the advocacy of existence without consciousness. It is the denial of man's faculty of cognition and therefore of all knowledge."

Dr. Peikoff continued citing Ms. Rand:

"Ayn Rand describes materialists as "Mystics of Muscle" - 'mystics' because, like idealists, they reject the faculty of reason. Man, they hold, is essentially a body without a mind. His conclusions, accordingly, reflect not the objective methodology of reason and logic, but the blind operations of physical factors, such as atomic dances in the cerebrum, glandular squirting, S-R conditionings, or the tools of production moving in that weird, waltz like contortion known as the dialectic process."

Materialism then is the rejection of using reason, logic (the non-contradictory identification of the facts of reality) to integrate perceptions via abstraction formation to conceptualization. Thus Rand's proper labeling materialists as mystics of muscle.

Seger just shows his ass via what is likely a pattern of epic fails in (b) because only those who embrace rational philosophy have a moral obligation to themselves to use reason and logic (non-contradictory identification of facts of reality) as their sole means of acquiring knowledge. Mystics like Seger, claim to get knowledge from some source outside of existence, perhaps from a telepathic tooth-fairy in dimension X. Seger's problem is that only existence exists. There is no outside of existence from which to receive privileged information.

3. Science - "How do you answer the problem of induction from a secular perspective?"

Seger betrays a total ignorance of Objectivism. Existence exists and does so independent of any form of consciousness. As Rand put it:

"Existence is Identity; consciousness is identification."

This is axiomatically irreducible. In all of existence, since A=A where ever existence exists, it does so in a uniform manner. The way in which existence inter-operates in all its aspects is called nature, and since nature is determined entirely by existence's identity, then nature is uniform where ever existence exists.

We know this not only from Objectivism's axioms, but because all of classical physics, Maxwell's equations, special and general relativity, and quantum mechanics (with a minimum application of mathematical substitutions) can be derived using Nother's theorem. Existence is gauge invariant. Meaning no matter how we translate, via spatial, angular, temporal displacement, a set of axisess in De Sitter attribute space upon which are plotted a set of unit vectors representing the laws of physics which are then summed to amultidimensionall tensor describing reality, themultidimensionall tensor describing reality retains its symmetry, magnitude and directional orientation. This means it is proven in modern physics that induction works and is thus justified.

See Victor Stenger's books. "The Comprehensible Cosmos" and "The Fallacy of Fine Tuning"

Seger's question betrays a commitment to gross petitio principii in assuming as his main premise that his god is real. All his arguments, as are those of all other preusupper apologists are nothing more than instances of affirming the consequent fallacy. Seger again shows complete ignorance of Objectivism. This shows their gross incompetence, dishonesty, and mental delusions.

4. Morality - "How do you account for objective morality without God?"

I answered this one three years ago using standard Objectivist arguments.

Come clean. Identify yourself. Be honest. Obey the teaching of your alleged god, Jesus of Nazareth, in Matt. 10:16. I don't think you can because you're likely a pathological liar.

The burden of proof is on you and your fellow delusional, dishonest, and grossly incompetent would-be amateur apologists.

Neither I nor anyone else has any obligation to answer your question although I've already answered it. Look up thread to my comment about G.E. Moore's hands. Your refusal to accept my answer only indicates the depth of your delusion and incompetence. People like you give Christianity a bad reputation.

Hezekiah wrote: "Ayn Rand asked her pupils to take their sense [sic] for granted."

As affable a chap as you seemed to be on the podcast, it still doesn't make up for the ignorance (willful or not) that you continue to display here, on your blog, and elswhere. As has been pointed out to you before, in the Forward to ITOE, Ayn Rand gives her reason for calling the book an "Introduction," and goes on to explain that: "For instance, I do not include here a discussion of the validity of man's senses -- since the arguments of those who attack the senses are merely variants of the fallacy of the 'stolen concept.'" -- something you engage in on a regular basis.

Furthermore, she goes on to state: "For the purposes of this series, the validity of the senses must be taken for granted..."

Did you catch that, Hezekiah? -- "For the purposes of this series..." Try and get that into your head, okay?

Your senses were validated a long, long time ago. If you don't believe me, go run into a wall, and then come back and give a report to us.

Nope. There is no need to go above beyond or around in search of some otherworldly accounting method or justification. In fact, doing so engages in stolen concepts. Besides "the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen" is merely hope in in the imaginary. And the imaginary is woefully insufficient to account for or to justify anything. An appeal to that which isn't there is the oldest trick in the book. It's often used to fool the unwary, but you won't find many takers around here. Nice try though.

If you're truly interested in a discussion as to the validity of the senses, you need only take a look at Ayn Rand's other works, as well what Peikoff and Dawson have written. Try to do so with your faith blinders removed though, so that you might finally understand what it is you read, rather than than looking for ways to make the arbitrary come true.

You write: "You can find this in the forward to the first edition of her book on the philosophy of irrationality aka "Objectivism"."

Yes. But we didn't find your citation complete, did we? In fact, you go out of your way to not only mischaracterize what she wrote, but you do it also with the title of the book. If nothing else, at least we know who the author is; however, the same cannot be said for whoever the mystics were that wrote the fantasy tales contained within your Storybook. Who wrote about the Conversational Donkey, the Chit-Chatty Snake, and City-Strolling Corpses? Who were they? And how do you know that, Hezekiah?

You wrote: "I was wondering why she would say this but Just a question Robert."

Hezekiah wrote: "Have your senses ever deceived you? If so how is it that they are not deceiving you right now?"

Would you care to explain to all of us how sense organs -- which respond automatically to stimuli and transmit messages to the central nervous system giving us awareness **that** some kind of objects exist -- have the power (or volition) to invent, distort, or deceive?

Without further elaboration, your questions are incoherent.

Here's a question that isn't incoherent, though: Do you think Jesus ever had an erection?

If yes, how do you know? If no, how could it be that you wouldn't know? If you don't know whether or not Jesus had an erection, why don't you know this? Are you at least capable of speculating about it?

If the answer is yes, do you think his erection ever tried to deceive him? Or is this question -- that Jesus' erection could deceive him -- as incoherent as the questions you have asked about the power of the senses to deceive?

You will have to explain to all of us how sense organs -- which respond automatically to stimuli and transmit messages to the central nervous system, giving us awareness **that** some kind of objects exist -- have the power (or volition) to invent, distort, or deceive.

Do you mean, for instance, that my ears tell me lies on purpose? Is this what you mean? Or that my ears pretend they are actually my eyes? Or do you mean that my sense of smell tries to convince me that such notions a Conversational Donkey, a Chit-Chatty Snake, and City-Strolling Corpses really don't stink? Or maybe you mean my sense of touch keeps attempting to tell me that evolution isn't true. Is this the kind of deception you have in mind?

You need to elaborate, otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about. Seriously.

Do you mean: are my senses like the god of your Storybook who, says "...it is because I, the LORD, have deceived that prophet?" or that my taste buds give me false information on purpose because Storybook god has "put a lying spirit into" (1Kings 22:23) my mouth?

You ask new questions without clarifying the ones you've already asked. Why don't you clarify your initial questions first, and then we can move on from there. Just in case you have forgotten your original questions which seek to make the arbitrary come true, here they are again:

"Have your senses ever deceived you?

If so how is it that they are not deceiving you right now?"

And here is my response: "You will have to explain to all of us how sense organs -- which respond automatically to stimuli and transmit messages to the central nervous system, giving us awareness **that** some kind of objects exist -- have the power (or volition) to invent, distort, or deceive.

Do you mean, for instance, that my ears tell me lies on purpose? Is this what you mean? Or that my ears pretend they are actually my eyes? Or do you mean that my sense of smell tries to convince me that such notions a Conversational Donkey, a Chit-Chatty Snake, and City-Strolling Corpses really don't stink? Or maybe you mean my sense of touch keeps attempting to tell me that evolution isn't true. Is this the kind of deception you have in mind?

You need to elaborate, otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about. Seriously.

Do you mean: are my senses like the god of your Storybook who, says "...it is because I, the LORD, have deceived that prophet?" or that my taste buds give me false information on purpose because Storybook god has "put a lying spirit into" (1Kings 22:23) my mouth?

You need to explain yourself."

Oh, and also this one: "Do you think Jesus' erection ever tried to deceive him?" and "Have you ever had an erection that deceived you?"

Hello, good afternoon. I caught a lucky break and did not have to do the stuff which I thought was to occupy my time today. The wife and I are in a Starbucks coffee shop with the laptops. Last night I thought it better to answer Seger's questions rather than read through Dawson's (as usual) excellent piece. Today I'm going carefully read Dawson's essay and post my comments in smaller units rather than having to split it up into long winded multiple parts.

Item 1: Dawson wrote “...he tells about his experiences at something called the “Reason Rally.” Segers used the words ‘sophisticated’ and ‘blasphemous’ to describe what he witnessed at the event”

Here is instance where Seger shows his profound ignorance of his own religion. According to Mark 3:38-30, the conditions for blasphemy are listed.

28 “Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— 30 because they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.” (NASB)

Note verse 30. To blaspheme a person has to believe that unclean spirits exist. The people at the reason rally were most likely atheists or agnostics of various sorts and as such they would not believe unclean spirits exist. In contrast, Seger probably does, so he meets the basic criteria for committing blasphemy

Seger and other Christian superstitious mystics who believe unclean spirits (demons or devils) exist constructively blaspheme their alleged god (gods plural if they are trinitarian Christians) by failing to obey and honor the stern commandments of their Lord as purportedly listed in Luke 14:33-35 (NASB)

33 “So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions. 34 Therefore, salt is good; but if even salt has become tasteless, with what will it be seasoned? 35 It is useless either for the soil or for the manure pile; it is thrown out. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

Seger, Hezekiah, Chris Bolt, Paul Mantinga, and all other professing Christians do not obey this command of their alleged Lord, yet they go blithely about their way enjoying the material fruits and profits of their work without even the slightest hint of conviction for their grievous sin of constructively accusing their alleged god and lord of lying either by assuming the Lukan author was fictionalizing, and thus that the New Testament is not divinely inspired, or by assuming that Jesus did not really mean what he is depicted as saying. Either way the offshoot is that Jesus, YHWH, Sophia (name of alleged holy spirit) were lying. This is significant because responsibility for lying is ascribed to the Devil in John 8:44. (NASB)“You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” In the Christian world view, whoever lies does so by the auspices or activity of the devil. So when presuppositional appologists or more ordinary Christians live normal lives owning property, working jobs, making investments, enjoying the good life, they are blasphemers per Mark 3:28-30 by accusing their god of lying via power of the devil through their disobedience to Luke 14:33-35.

Dawson typed: > “This is why the content of Christian apologetics is more often than not a load of questions thrust at non-Christians in rapid-fire succession.”

Yes, this is standard modus operandi for those rascals. Rather than presenting objective evidence for existence of their god(s), they wish to attack the basis of human cognition in an effort to stimulate cognitive dissonance so as to be in a position to offer a solution to the poor stupid non-believer. This strategy is doomed to fail so long as education about facts of modern cosmology and evolution theory are propagated through public schools, colleges, universities. This is why these delusional hypocrites strenuously work to control public school curriculum. O-ist should support non-believer candidates for positions on their local school boards to oppose the religious agenda of the crazies.

Dawson typed: > “...Greg Bahnsen himself has emphasized that “[w]e need to set the Christian worldview, the theistic world view side by side with the atheist world view”

Bahnsen either refused to acknowledge that there are many atheistic world views or that there can only be a single comparison between what he Petitio'ed as his god's unjustifiable existence and an umbrella straw-man atheism encompassing all non-belief. Either way, all versions of presuppositionalism performatively predicate their god exists as a brute fact while evading and obfuscating, when directly asked, to provide objective evidence for the existence of their god. In Bahnsen's and his followers case the ancient Hebrew totem/monster YHWH.

However, much to their chagrin, their god's existence is in principle detectable via its affects on existence. When we carefully deduce what those affects should be, given clues from sacred religious scriptures and tradition, and then form a model god from that data, we have a testable hypothesis. Diligently searching for confirming evidence is in vain, for none is to be found. Thus the God Hypothesis is falsified, and religious apologists no matter what faith are simply wrong. See Victor Stenger's book “God, The Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows God Does Not Exist”

Did you hear how your homeboy Sye Ten Bruggencate bugged out of the Fundamentally Flawed podcaset rather than answer the question. "Do you have any objectively valid evidence your god exists? Yes or no."

You homeboy is a coward and a liar and just a cute little one trick pony. All you can do is to try and attack human cognition, and very ineptly at that.

In the podcast where you made a total fool of yourself, you asserted several times that the hosts, Alex, Jim, and Paul were spiritually dead and could not hear the alleged spirit of your god. You did this presumably in contrast to yourself and your homeboy Sye and other Bahnsen followers who do hear the voice of Sophia, the holy spirit of your god.

So then pray tell, why won't you man up and identify yourself in obedience to your alleged god's command at Matt 10:16?

Why do you blithely violate Luke 14:33-35 and in the process blaspheme Sophia, JC, and YHWH as per Mark 3:28-30 via the mechanism of John 8:44?

The fact that you feel not the least bit of conviction from the alleged holy spirit for these grievous "sins" is very strong confirming evidence your faith is only a silly delusion.

“God may at any time take one fact and set it into a new relation to created law. That is, there is no inherent reason in the facts or laws why this should not be done. It is this sort of conception of the relation of facts and laws, of the temporal one and many, embedded as it is in the idea of God in which we profess to believe, that we need in order to make room for miracles. And miracles are at the heart of the Christian position.” (The Defense of the Faith, p. 27) ~ Cornelius Van Til

This is why Christians have to defend Biblical inerrancy and why their alleged holy spirit should be convicting them for their sins of unbelief for disobedience to Luke 14:33-35.

Dawson asked: > "Is this really where Segers wants to go in his apologetic? Is this really the antithesis to which he wants to draw attention when deploying his apologetic talk points? I’m guessing Segers will not respond to such questions, even though they are crucially pertinent."

Yes. It is where Seger and all his ilk want to take the believers mind. If the sheep are willing to accept whatever the book of sacred fairy tales says is true as truth, then the Shaman/Priests/Cult-Leaders can smuggle in whatever they want for the flock to believe as truth. If they can make the believers have faith in absurdities, they can make them commit atrocities or give all their money to the ministry. Recall the fate of the fictional characters Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11. The model of economic affairs stipulated in the New Testament is ecclesiastical communism. So of course Seger and his ilk want the believers to be unthinking, uncritical, and to have child like faith so they can pillage the poor fools as per Luke 14:33-35.

Hezekiah wrote: "Now, on what rational basis do you, Robert, as an atheist account for the scientific method?"

That's easy: On the basis of the fact that existence exists and only existence exists; on the axioms consciousness and identity, and the Primacy of Existence Principle. So certainly not by adhering to the Primacy of Consciousness metaphysics, which sets people on a mind-quest to make the imaginary come true, where rationalizations, such pointing to that which isn't there to account for or justify such conjured up Storybook notions as Conversational Donkeys, Chit-Chatty Snakes, and City-Strolling Corpses. That you take such notions seriously, Hezekiah, and then try to justify them as you do, shows just how much you are dabbling in grand silliness!

Now on to previous matters:

You will have to explain to all of us how sense organs -- which respond automatically to stimuli and transmit messages to the central nervous system, giving us awareness **that** some kind of objects exist -- have the power (or volition) to invent, distort, or deceive.

Do you mean, for instance, that my ears tell me lies on purpose? Is this what you mean? Or that my ears pretend they are actually my eyes? Or do you mean that my sense of smell tries to convince me that such notions a Conversational Donkey, a Chit-Chatty Snake, and City-Strolling Corpses really don't stink? Or maybe you mean my sense of touch keeps attempting to tell me that evolution isn't true. Is this the kind of deception you have in mind?

You need to elaborate, otherwise I have no idea what you're talking about. Seriously.

Do you mean: are my senses like the god of your Storybook who, says "...it is because I, the LORD, have deceived that prophet?" or that my taste buds give me false information on purpose because Storybook god has "put a lying spirit into" (1Kings 22:23) my mouth?

R.B said"Rather than presenting objective evidence for existence of their god(s), they wish to attack the basis of human cognition in an effort to stimulate cognitive dissonance so as to be in a position to offer a solution to the poor stupid non-believer."

Of course Hezekiah never does that ;)Do you, Hezekiah?"How is it" that you doesnt do that?

You came over here and jumped right into a conversation last July. Now you want **me** to stay out of **your** conversation!?!

That's funny.

Such utterances just must be you actualizing that sense of humor I always knew you had in you, ever since I listened to you on the podcast. At least, I hope that's what's happening, otherwise your ability to recognize irony is severely damaged. If it is damaged or deficient, don't worry about it too much, because it seems to be a common trait exhibited many of your ilk. Christians like yourself seem to have such a difficult time with irony. I wonder why?

"However, how about you answer those questions."

How 'bout you clarify or make them coherent first?

Meanwhile, if you feel like answering some meat and potatoes questions, maybe you could give these a go:

Literalistic Christians of any sect must defend Biblical inerrancy because that is the only way they can selectively and pejoratively claim their miracle stories really happened while those of other religions are myths. But this sword cuts both ways, for those who live by Biblical inerrancy die by it.

The core of Christian belief is in the resurrection of Jesus. As Paul allegedly wrote in 1 Cor 15:14

“and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.”

Consider Matt 27:52-53 (NASB)

“52 The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.”

To defend the resurrection from the charge that the visionary experiences of the disciples were no different from those of a general wave of similar resurrection apparitional visions, apologists will resort to the obvious lie that nominal second temple Judaism did not have a working concept of a resurrecting messiah.

But they can't get away with that because the Gospel of Mark contradicts their point. Being Biblical inerrantists, they must defend Mark 6:14-16 (NASB)

14 And King Herod heard of it, for His name (Jesus of Nazareth) had become well known; and people were saying, “John the Baptist has risen from the dead, and that is why these miraculous powers are at work in Him.” 15 But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” 16 But when Herod heard of it, he kept saying, “John, whom I beheaded, has risen!”

This indicates that the Markan author thought it common knowledge among Palestinian Jews that an eschatological resurrection of end time Son of Man was in the offing as a widely assumed aspect of end times belief. However, Herod's reaction was diegetically a case of mistaken identity. These practitioners of Bibliolatry must also defend the case of mistaken identity in Mark 8:27-28. (NASB)

27 Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He questioned His disciples, saying to them,“Who do people say that I am?”28 They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah ; but others, one of the prophets.”

Yet even after the intervening diegetic events between Herod's case of mistaken identity up till the point in the story where Jesus's followers, some of whom would be former followers of the Baptist, are still mistaking him for a resurrected eschatological Son of Man.

Give this, there is no way Christians of any sort can honestly assert the story's disciple characters could have not simply mistaken some of the resurrected saints from Matthew 27:52-53 for a visionary apparition of their former, but now quite dead, guru. Or just as likely the disciples mistook someone else for the risen one. Of course none of the story's characters had any extra diegetical existence, but this line of reasoning explodes any possible notion of Biblical inerrancy via super-nature protection of the New Testament Gospel's story because nobody can rationally defend resurrection theology from this argument, Its bullet proof.

Without the resurrection of Jesus, Christianity is nothing more than bad moral philosophy, and Christian apologists of whatever sect, including the demonstrated liar Hezekiah Ahaz, have no epistemic right to demand answers to their silly Petitio principii questions.

Further to my point from last night about Matthew's zombies (Mt 27:52-53, Herod's case of mistaken identity of Jesus for a resurrected John the Baptist as eschatological Son of Man (Mk 6:14-16) and the case of mistaken identity by Jesus' followers who were likely former followers of John the Baptist (Mk 8:27-28) misidentifying Jesus for the risen Baptist as eschatological Son of Man:

The point was that Christianity can only be true if and only if Jesus resurrected from the dead by magic of YHWH and if and only if Judaism is a true revelation from YHWH.

Then even if, for sake of argument, it is gratuitously granted that gods and magic might exist and that the Gospel stories are pretty much accurate history, Christian apologists cannot show that the alleged resurrection of Jesus was more probably due to the magic of the Jewish totem-god YHWH.

This is because the case of mistaken identity by Herod and Jesus' followers who would have likely been former followers of the Baptist coupled with the story of the visionary apparitions of Matthew's zombies is more likely than a miracle.

This means Christian apologists have no epistemic or moral right to blithely assume their world view is correct or that their religion's purported miracles are any truer than alleged miracle stories.

So that you're continuously asking this same or similar stupid questions indicates you're being purposefully obtuse or that you're a moron.

Since my world view is validated, I do have both epistemic and moral right to demand you answer this:

Do you have any valid objective and empirical evidence for existence of your god, YHWH?

Since your world view is pure bullshit, don't even mention the fraking TAG. News-Flash! TAG has been refuted.

Do you have any valid objective and empirical evidence for existence of your god, YHWH?

If not then why don't you run away like a little girl, like your religion guru and homeboy Sye Ten Bruggencate ran away from the Fundamentally Flawed podcast.

Further to my point from last night about Matthew's zombies (Mt 27:52-53, Herod's case of mistaken identity of Jesus for a resurrected John the Baptist as eschatological Son of Man (Mk 6:14-16) and the case of mistaken identity by Jesus' followers who were likely former followers of John the Baptist (Mk 8:27-28) misidentifying Jesus for the risen Baptist as eschatological Son of Man:

The point was that Christianity can only be true if and only if Jesus resurrected from the dead by magic of YHWH and if and only if Judaism is a true revelation from YHWH. (more on Judaism later)

Then even if, for sake of argument, it is gratuitously granted that gods and magic might exist and that the Gospel stories are pretty much accurate history, Christian apologists cannot show that the alleged resurrection of Jesus was more probably likely due to the magic of the Jewish totem-god YHWH.

This is because the case of mistaken identity by Herod and Jesus' followers who would have likely been former followers of the Baptist coupled with the story of the visionary apparitions of Matthew's zombies is more probably likely than a miracle.

Recall Hume’s point on miracles:

The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our attention), 'That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish; and even in that case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only gives us an assurance suitable to that degree of force, which remains, after deducting the inferior.' When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.

The lesser miracles of mistaken identity, theft of the body, the swoon theory, or the Thomas Didumas as identical twin of Jesus are all more likely than the magic resurrection hypothesis.

This means Christian apologists have no epistemic or moral right to blithely assume their world view is correct or that their religion's purported miracles are any truer than alleged miracle stories of all other religions they pejoratively reject.

In light of the prior points, that you're continuously asking this same or similar stupid questions indicates you're being purposefully obtuse or that you're a moron.

Since my world view is validated, I do have both epistemic and moral right to demand you answer this:

Do you have any valid objective and empirical evidence for existence of your god, YHWH?

Since your world view is pure bullshit, don't even mention the fraking TAG. News-Flash! TAG has been refuted.

Do you have any valid objective and empirical evidence for existence of your god, YHWH?

If not, then why don't you run away like a little girl, like your religion guru and homeboy Sye Ten Bruggencate ran away from the Fundamentally Flawed podcast, or stop being dishonest.

Hezekiah wrote: "Faith is the only belief that we can be absolutely certain about."

I asked: "Would you mind defining faith for us, so we can be clear on what you mean by the term?"

Hezekiah responded: "Faith is the foundation of all reasoning and hence knowledge."

Great. What I gather from this is that you are certain of your belief. Do you believe in belief, or are you certain of your belief?

You do realize that being certain of a belief and that belief actually corresponding to reality are two entirely different things, don't you?

But maybe you need to tell us what your understanding is in the difference between "belief" and "faith." Could you explain that to us?

In any event, is the definition for "faith," exactly as you've provided it to us, located anywhere in your bible? If so, can you cite chapter and verse, please?

If you are not able to cite for us this a definition from your bible that matches your definition, would you mind citing for us the source of your definition?

And when you are finished doing so, could you tell us -- since you maintain faith is the "foundation of all reasoning and hence knowledge," -- whether or not Satan has faith? Or is Satan not able to reason and have knowledge?

And if Satan has faith, knowledge, reason and believes in Jesus, why isn't he saved?

You leave, but only for the moment, unwilling yet again to shed any light on your world view.

One can only conclude from this that your non-response to my questions must have something to with the fact that faith is merely a mirage, the foundation for that which isn't really there -- which is no foundation at all.

But perhaps I'm wrong. Why don't you answer my questions and we can see if I am?

I'm still curious about your world view, so just in case you're interesting in addressing the questions I presented yesterday, here they are:

------------------------------------

Hezekiah wrote: "Faith is the only belief that we can be absolutely certain about."

I asked: "Would you mind defining faith for us, so we can be clear on what you mean by the term?"

Hezekiah responded: "Faith is the foundation of all reasoning and hence knowledge."

Great. What I gather from this is that you are certain of your belief. Do you believe in belief, or are you certain of your belief?

You do realize that being certain of a belief and that belief actually corresponding to reality are two entirely different things, don't you?

But maybe you need to tell us what your understanding is in the difference between "belief" and "faith." Could you explain that to us?

In any event, is the definition for "faith," exactly as you've provided it to us, located anywhere in your bible? If so, can you cite chapter and verse, please?

If you are not able to cite for us this a definition from your bible that matches your definition, would you mind citing for us the source of your definition?

And when you are finished doing so, could you tell us -- since you maintain faith is the "foundation of all reasoning and hence knowledge," -- whether or not Satan has faith? Or is Satan not able to reason and have knowledge?

And if Satan has faith, knowledge, reason and believes in Jesus, why isn't he saved?

Please try not to skip any of my questions.

------------------------------------

Thanks.

Oh, and by the way, I didn't see a definition for faith over on your blog, under your posting of Frame's Glossary, nor did I see a glossary entry for "belief." So I guess we can rule him out (and Bahnsen and Van Till as well) as your source for ***your*** definition of faith? Since this is so, can you tell us your source so that we can see if it matches up to the definition you've provided? And when you do, make sure you answer my follow-up questions that I've posed above, as well.

I'm curious about your world view, and what it is you''re relying upon for the definitions and concepts used to inform it. Why not tell me about it?